advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer V

Status
Not open for further replies.
paulfromcamden said:
I think there's some truth in that but I suspect you have a slightly more optimistic view of the electorate than I do. Would be interesting to ask random voters leaving a polling station to name four policies proposed by the party they'd just voted for. I suspect I'd struggle tbh.
Click to expand...
Well, I suggested that a large number of voters consciously voted for cruelty and destruction so I don’t know how optimistic my view is :).

If it’s true that most people are unaware of policy (not clear, IME) I’m not sure that’s on the electorate. As I say, policy is barely discussed during campaigns by political journos, except as a source of gotchas (“You say you want to do X but the IFS says this will cost 13 bajillion pounds, you moron, you imbecile!”) Most often manifestos are put together with a view to avoiding such attacks, with policies instead communicating instead a broad vision or direction. You can’t really blame voters for not investing any more heavily in the details of a manifesto than its authors, or for voting on the basis of, well, vibes. It’s what they’re asked to do and there are no in incentives to do anything else, because what choices are there.
 
paulfromcamden said:
I think there's some truth in that but I suspect you have a slightly more optimistic view of the electorate than I do. Would be interesting to ask random voters leaving a polling station to name four policies proposed by the party they'd just voted for. I suspect I'd struggle tbh.
Click to expand...
I read Sean’s post to say that policies do not matter, that people vote on what they see as realistic. Johnson, Get Brexit Done, Drown foreigners in the channel are all seen as realistic, whereas Corbyn, change, and for the Many not the Few were not seen as realistic.

Even centrists who say they want change, are quicker to dismiss as unrealistic those who propose change than they are the status quo.

The Status Quo will go on Again and Again because it is realistic, change is not
 
Yes, it is quite understandable that many people simply accept the "obvious" views presented to them consistently. To do otherwise requires sufficient alertness to question more carefully what they keep being told by the media. The problem is that often something "obvious" is simply wrong, but seems perfectly reasonable unless you dig behind it. This is how con-artists over the ages have continued to prosper.

Alas, even if they still *have* a local library, how many would go to it to find and read any books on topics like economics or maths, etc, that would then let them twig how the newspapers, etc, systematically present a simplistic, plausble, but con-man misleading 'view' of reality? Why would it occur to them when what the papers say is "obvious common sense"?
 
ks.234 said:
I read Sean’s post to say that policies do not matter, that people vote on what they see as realistic. Johnson, Get Brexit Done, Drown foreigners in the channel are all seen as realistic, whereas Corbyn, change, and for the Many not the Few were not seen as realistic.

Even centrists who say they want change, are quicker to dismiss as unrealistic those who propose change than they are the status quo.

The Status Quo will go on Again and Again because it is realistic, change is not
Click to expand...

That is, indeed, the loop we are in. But of course change *will* happen regardless of if we like it or not. That *will* happen on every level. e.g. on the biggest, no matter how some want to deny it Climate Change is real, and serious, and means big changes however we now react - and change.

On top of that, things *are* changing anyway. From the grip of the ultra-wealthy converting the UK into "switzerland-on-sea" to the probably independence of Scotland, etc. So the actual reality people will face is *what* changes we actually want or need, not simply let some be forced on us.
 
Oddly, just had an example of the "thinking" I was describing earlier...

We get my wife's medications delivered on a repeat prescription every 8 weeks. Guy came this morning to deliver. New delivery bloke for us.

He put the package on the mat outside the outer door of the porch. I can use this as an 'airlock' and it has a glass part in the outer door. However unlike previous deliverers he stood and waited close to the door. I asked him if he could please step well back from the door.

He stayed were he was, so I asked again. This time he moved back a step and said he was "2 metres away". However I asked him to please step away a bit further. Again he just said he was "2 metres away". So I explained we were shielding and needed to be cautious. Grudgingly, he stepped back a bit more. I decided this was as big a concession as he would make so I opened the door and picked up the package.

As I did so he said that "If he was infected I'd catch covid from touching the package". I explained I would wash my hand.

He then departed.

It seems fairly clear that his thinking is in terms of "Magic incantations and passess". i.e. the "Rules" say "2 metres" and "surfaces need to be cleaned" without a clue about how the virus *actually* propagates. Thus any request for him to do more is a personal affront - almost as if he weren't 'clean' in some way.

The reality is that when I open that outer door a draft often then blows in, which would draw in anything in the air just outside. So I normally wait a while after the deliverer has put down the item and moved well away. The "rules" about "2 metres" etc are no more that convenient rules of thumb to give people an idea of what can provide a useful level of risk reduction. In practice "2 meters" isn't perfect, it just tends to be better than no bothering and is a nice round number that avoids being absurdly large.

If he had thought of details like air movement, dispersion versus range curved, etc he might have behaved like all the other deliverers - who without being asked, moved much further away or simply left having got our acknowledgement though the glass.

If he'd known about surface contamination he'd have understood that infection *though* the skin is unlikely. The problem is that from the hands you may transfer it to your mouth/nose/eyes. So given care and cleaning your hands this is very low risk.

But "rules are rules" is simpler, isn't it...
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
If he'd known about surface contamination he'd have understood that infection *though* the skin is unlikely. The problem is that from the hands you may transfer it to your mouth/nose/eyes. So given care and cleaning your hands this is very low risk.

But "rules are rules" is simpler, isn't it...
Click to expand...

When you're dealing with a large population with varying levels of capacity for thought and understanding, yes it is.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
I can't personally relate that to manifestos. But I can notice that under the SNP Scotland has made a number of changes relative to England. e.g. ending the sale of social housing some years ago. e.g.2 not adopting all the 'reforms' of the NHS that allow blood-sucking by the private sector. e.g. essentially abolishing leaseholding for homes. e.g.3 changed the way the railway here is treated. e.g.4 changed the income tax rates here to shift the burden up the scale. e.g5 changes in the laws related to large land ownership.

i.e. doing things that the UK Government should have done. Particularly in periods when Blair / Brown were in office. Each step perhaps small, but generally supported by people, and in the right directions.

Most of these changes probably went unreported 'down South'.
Click to expand...
All good stuff, however, I wasn’t criticising the SNP, though it’s true we don’t see much positive about the party posted here by the nationalists so it’s good to see some. When a bloke from Glasgow dared to criticise the party he was bullied out of that particular thread rather than anyone countering what he was saying.

For all I know the SNP may well qualify as ‘progressive’ ( whatever that means ), I’m not saying they aren’t. I see a lot here about SNP = progressive, Labour = regressive. Comparing the published manifesto’s of both Labour and the SNP seems a reasonable approach to figuring out why one party has been rejected for supposedly being ‘regressive’ while the other is ‘progressive’.
 
Seanm said:
Well, I suggested that a large number of voters consciously voted for cruelty and destruction so I don’t know how optimistic my view is :).

If it’s true that most people are unaware of policy (not clear, IME) I’m not sure that’s on the electorate. As I say, policy is barely discussed during campaigns by political journos, except as a source of gotchas (“You say you want to do X but the IFS says this will cost 13 bajillion pounds, you moron, you imbecile!”) Most often manifestos are put together with a view to avoiding such attacks, with policies instead communicating instead a broad vision or direction. You can’t really blame voters for not investing any more heavily in the details of a manifesto than its authors, or for voting on the basis of, well, vibes. It’s what they’re asked to do and there are no in incentives to do anything else, because what choices are there.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can see this in pledges that lay out a general direction of govt.
 
sean99 said:
https://newsthump.com/2021/02/18/ke...ore-labour-party-principle-of-unelectability/
Click to expand...
Quite amusing, but as satire isn’t it a bit out of date? If attaining power is the objective, and moving ever right is the means, is it working? Or ever likely to work?

It worked with Blair by moving slightly to the left of an expenses scandal, but we’re now in a political reality where massive corruption and cronyism barely causes a ripple. So much so that the arbour Party itself has abandoned opposing such things to the Good Law Project.

Isn’t it time to ask what power is for? What is the objective of power? If not power for power’s sake, then for whose sake?
 
Seeker_UK said:
When you're dealing with a large population with varying levels of capacity for thought and understanding, yes it is.
Click to expand...

Yes. But the question is to what extent the number of people like this is expanded by the way we as a country/society 'educate' them and then the media habituate them to believe what suits our rulers.
 
ks.234 said:
Quite amusing, but as satire isn’t it a bit out of date? If attaining power is the objective, and moving ever right is the means, is it working? Or ever likely to work?

It worked with Blair by moving slightly to the left of an expenses scandal, but we’re now in a political reality where massive corruption and cronyism barely causes a ripple. So much so that the arbour Party itself has abandoned opposing such things to the Good Law Project.

Isn’t it time to ask what power is for? What is the objective of power? If not power for power’s sake, then for whose sake?
Click to expand...

The standard response is that the purpose of power *is* power. i.e. you have to hold power in order to do what *you* want. For the 'right' (in all parties) that is so you can ensure you and your mates are wealthy, influential, etc, and that the sheep don't look up. If you are 'radical' it may be different, but power attracts the 'right' whatever your 'party' might be.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
The standard response is that the purpose of power *is* power. i.e. you have to hold power in order to do what *you* want. For the 'right' (in all parties) that is so you can ensure you and your mates are wealthy, influential, etc, and that the sheep don't look up. If you are 'radical' it may be different, but power attracts the 'right' whatever your 'party' might be.
Click to expand...
Yes. The sheep metaphor is sooo relevant. After 1066 we were ruled by feudalism and an economy built on sheep. The very seat of power was, and still is, the wool sack. We had the sheep owners, and, if you’ll forgive a massive oversimplification, the sheep looker-afterers . The sheep looker afterers bought into the sheep owners agenda for self preservation which has become so engrained that self preservation means what ever current the sheep owners demand!

This is the fundamental reason why Marxism failed a century ago and why socialism, even in it’s more moderate form, has failed recently
 
flatpopely said:
So she won with 3.8% of the members vote.
Click to expand...
If people can’t be arsed to use their vote that is not the fault of the beneficiary. For all the moaning about Brexit and corruption, the instigator, Farage, is Farage because pre referendum people who opposed Brexit couldn’t be bothered to get off their arses to vote against him until it was too late.

If a leader of Unite is elected on a minority turn out, and Unite members are not happy with the result, perhaps they should’a got off their arses. If those now moaning are not members of Unite, what’s the problem?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top